266 



lie, if it could be proved that he could not, and 

 never had done either one or the other ; yet here 

 again, it would be necessary to prove that the dealei 

 knew these representations to be false ; for if h( 

 was speaking, not from his own knowledge, but or 

 the authority of a falsehood told to himself by th( 

 person from whom he bought the animal, it woulc 

 not amount to deceit, and an action would not lie 

 vide Parkinson v. Lee, 2 East, 314. 



It is not only the purchaser, to whom thes^ 

 explanations will be useful ; dealers may equall; 

 learn from them, the infinite importance of a stric 

 adherence to truth, in speaking of the qualities o 

 their goods. Good faith is in law an essentia 

 requisite to the validity of a contract : and althougl 

 the precaution of requiring a warranty is so obvi 

 ous and so easy, that courts of law are muc 

 inclined to apply the rule of caveat emptor agains 

 a purchaser, it by no means follows that they wi] 

 look with an indulgent eye upon any misrepresen 

 tation made by a seller, if there is apparent indica 

 tion of a fraudulent purpose. A dealer should la; 

 it down as a maxim quite as important for him t< 

 observe, as it is for the purchaser, — that the les 

 he says the better : after naming his price, he ma; 

 show his horse off to as much advantage as h< 

 can ; he may make the most of it in every wa^ 



